Optimal Manufacturer Recycling Strategy under EPR Regulations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is interesting and can contribute into the scientific literature of the field. However, I recommend authors to further strengthen the quality of this article.

- First of all, the gap of this study should be identified and emphasized the significance of the study, what are the contribution of this study in the field knowledge?

- Introduction section is poorly written and no coherence developed between paragraphs. Please put efforts on it.

 

- Literature review section is difficult to understand the point of view. It would be much better to include a table, in which authors should list down the key studies such as researcher name, methodology adopted, key findings of their studies.

 

- Authors should strengthen the draft of this article and cite the up-to-date literature from the databases. Following articles can also be considered for citations:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011215

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20953893

- Conclusion section should be extended through including managerial implications, practical implications, theoretical contribution, research limitations and future avenue.

Author Response

Responses to the comments from Reviewer 1

 

Thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments and marked all the changes in red in the revised version.

 

1. The gap of this study should be identified and emphasized the significance of the study, what are the contribution of this study in the field knowledge?

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. The gap of our work marked in red is organized at the end of each paragraph in the section of Literature Review, and we outlined the contributions in lines 118 to 127.

 

2. Introduction section is poorly written and no coherence developed between paragraphs. Please put efforts on it.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. The introduction section has been rewritten with the following structure:

(1) We introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the background of an increasing number of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), shown in paragraph 1.

(2) After introducing EPR, we expound on the necessity of authorizing a third-party recycler (TPR) by explaining that the manufacturers face higher recycling pressure under EPR due to the lack of a fully equipped recycling channel, and the TPR is more sophisticated in recovery work, shown in paragraph 2.

(3) We further point out that TPR’s involvement will intensify competition with the manufacturer, which enlightens us to study whether the manufacturer should authorize TPR, as shown in paragraph 3.

(4) Next, we propose the questions, relevant methods, and main findings. Finally, we depict the overall paper framework.

 

3. Literature review section is difficult to understand the point of view. It would be much better to include a table, in which authors should list down the key studies such as researcher name, methodology adopted, key findings of their studies.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We have reorganized the literature review section by dividing it into three streams of study: EPR regulation, CLSC including TPR, and trade-in. Furthermore, we underline our study’s originality as Table 1 illustrates. For simplicity, we use “√” to indicate the focus of current research.

 

4. Authors should strengthen the draft of this article and cite the up-to-date literature from the databases. Following articles can also be considered for citations: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011215; https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20953893

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We have cited the above two literatures as shown in [8] and [19].

 

5. Conclusion section should be extended through including managerial implications, practical implications, theoretical contribution, research limitations and future avenue.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. In accordance with your requirements, we have revised and supplemented the conclusion section accordingly

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with current and important issues drawing attention to the relationship between sales and recycling in the supply chain. The need for a broader view of supply chain management is the product of many intersecting trends. Sustainable supply chain management not only identifies them, but by managing potential risks - translates them into business opportunities and benefits. The definition of supply chain has come a long way in the past two decades from narrow purchasing management to integration of all elements. Numerous studies have shown that how a company procures basic raw materials, products and services determines how it creates value for stakeholders.

The article has an adequate theoretical basis, relevant information and analysis, good partial conclusions (in the article) and final conclusions (in the conclusion). The article uses the author's original research. The article is written in good language. The research models were applied correctly. Systematization of models is not a simple issue, as the diversity of model types is mainly due to their precisely defined purpose. Thus, the article should be regarded as an interesting introduction to a very important issue and should be treated as a scientific article.

Author Response

Responses to the comments from Reviewer 2

 

Thank you for your careful review regarding our manuscript and recognition of this article. Your elaboration on the model research of sustainable supply chain has inspired us deeply. Your encouragement is the motivation for our continuous research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

As a reviewer, it was a pleasure to review this paper. The topic is interesting for the Process journal readers. It is clear how the manuscript is structured and written. Despite the study's strengths, there are a few points that could be improved and need clarification.

 

Point 1. This article has language issues which must be improved. Authors are recommended to avoid mysterious passive voice, e.g. line no. 10 in the middle of the sentence used the "however" word.

 

Point 2. Line no. 28 is not an appropriate place to cite the sentence. Either use it at the beginning or at the end of the sentence.

 

Point 3. Line no. 42: Gazalle.com has changed its name to https://www.ecoatm.com/, so the authors need to replace it with a new name.

 

Point 4. Line no. 51-52 authors have written "Ray et al. [5] pricing decisions..." but here needs correction "According to Ray et al. [5] pricing decisions". Similarly, "Cao et al. [6] and Ma et al. [7] study" here can be corrected by "Based on Cao et al. [6] and Ma et al. [7] study..."

 

Point 5. The authors use too many unnecessary Parentheses () in Line no. 27-28, 31-32, 139-142 and so on that must be avoided throughout the manuscript.  Parentheses mainly enclose information that is not vital to a sentence, which means too much unnecessary information is included in the manuscript.

 

Point 6.  The introduction part is very large. It should be more precise and smaller.

Point 7. The research gap is not cleared. The research questions and hypothesis were not included. The authors should include the research question, which outlines the research study's conclusion.

Point 8. Under Numerical simulation analysis, authors' should include the software name that was used to analyze the data.

Point 9. Limitations of the research should be included in the conclusion part.

Point 10.  It is also suggested that the key findings should be summarized in the Conclusion one by one with the marks of 1. 2. 3. or i. ii. iii. Etc

 

Author Response

Responses to the comments from Reviewer 3

 

Thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments and marked all the changes in red in the revised version.

 

1. This article has language issues which must be improved. Authors are recommended to avoid mysterious passive voice, e.g. line no. 10 in the middle of the sentence used the "however" word.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We have used MDPI's language editing service to enhance the readability of our study.

 

2. Line no. 28 is not an appropriate place to cite the sentence. Either use it at the beginning or at the end of the sentence

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We have moved the citation to the end of the sentence, shown in line no. 30.

 

3. Line no. 42: Gazalle.com has changed its name to https://www.ecoatm.com/, so the authors need to replace it with a new name.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We have changed it to a new name, shown in line no. 38.

 

4. Line no. 51-52 authors have written "Ray et al. [5] pricing decisions..." but here needs correction "According to Ray et al. [5] pricing decisions". Similarly, "Cao et al. [6] and Ma et al. [7] study" here can be corrected by "Based on Cao et al. [6] and Ma et al. [7] study..."

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We have corrected “Ray et al. [5] pricing decisions of durable goods by manufacturers through three pricing schemes” to “According to Ray et al. [23], there exist optimal trade-in and pricing strategies of durable goods manufacturers.”, shown in line no. 104-106.

 

5. The authors use too many unnecessary Parentheses () in Line no. 27-28, 31-32, 139-142 and so on that must be avoided throughout the manuscript. Parentheses mainly enclose information that is not vital to a sentence, which means too much unnecessary information is included in the manuscript.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We removed insignificant additional remarks. For example, we listed concrete legislation names about EPR in different countries to explain further the meaning of EPR instead of adding a parenthesis, shown in line no. 28-30.

6. The introduction part is very large. It should be more precise and smaller.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. The introduction section has been rewritten precisely and concisely with the following structure:

(1) We introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the background of an increasing number of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), shown in paragraph 1.

(2) After introducing EPR, we expound on the necessity of authorizing a third-party recycler (TPR) by explaining that the manufacturers face higher recycling pressure under EPR due to the lack of a fully equipped recycling channel, and the TPR is more sophisticated in recovery work, shown in paragraph 2.

(3) We further point out that TPR’s involvement will intensify competition with the manufacturer, which enlightens us to study whether the manufacturer should authorize TPR, as shown in paragraph 3.

(4) Next, we propose the questions, relevant methods, and main findings. Finally, we depict the overall paper framework.

 

7. The research gap is not cleared. The research questions and hypothesis were not included. The authors should include the research question, which outlines the research study's conclusion.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We introduced research questions in line no. 50-53 and outlined the study’s conclusions in line no. 62-68. Furthermore, the hypotheses are listed in line no. 183-223.

 

8. Under Numerical simulation analysis, authors' should include the software name that was used to analyze the data.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We added software name used for numerical analysis in line no. 506.

 

9. Limitations of the research should be included in the conclusion part.

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We listed limitations in section 6.4 in line no. 620-633.

 

10. It is also suggested that the key findings should be summarized in the Conclusion one by one with the marks of 1. 2. 3. or i. ii. iii. Etc

 

Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We extended the conclusion section to four parts: Managerial Implications, Practical Implications, Theoretical Contribution, and Limitations and Future Avenue, and each part has been reorganized one by one if necessary.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is ready for publication.